Joel Osteen is a fraud meta thread

[hobbes2702 13049]

Churches in this country own billions of dollars in property and goods but pay zero in taxes on them. They also don’t even have to file for non profit status technically. Most do, but aren’t required.

And as far as funding goes, read up on Trinity vs Comer. We find churches whether we want to or not.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Shit...

Yes, Osteen is gross and his message is mostly a mockery of what Jesus preached, but as a Harvey survivor too, I really don't understand why the whole entire city of Houston turned on his church and his church alone as a scapegoat. 

Somebody got on social media and hollered something about "Osteen isn't letting people crash at his pad!" and it was Katy bar the door after that. Dozens of other megachurches in the area also did not throw open their doors to flood victims, but he bore all the wrath for all of that. And if you look at Lakewood's floor plan, it hardly fits the design for an ideal shelter, unless you like to sleep sitting up.

 

Yes he's a smarmy little turd, but I don't think he deserved all the rage during Harvey. Nor do I think he deserves a cookie for acting particularly nobly during same.

 

And shit, here is where I am gonna piss even more people off: Mattress Mac let a couple hundred people crash on his floor models for a night or two, wrote the whole thing off, got mega fucktons of free pub out of the whole deal, and then Houstonians wanted to build nine million statues of him, as if he has ever done anything that wasn't in the aim of selling more shitty furniture to people who have to finance it. 

Meanwhile, an army of Houstonians was out there helping each other with zero pub or any kind of angle, while those two hogged the spotlight, one for alleged sins and the alleged heroism. 

 

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

There are still volunteers, from a lot of these little churches who can't afford their electric bills, heading to Houston even now to help with rebuilding homes for Harvey victims.  There is zero publicity that this is still going on.  The work is not done, folks.

 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

What's with the hate?  This debate has been civil.

 

My apologies that your delicate sensibilities were bruised by my obviously abhorrent language. Tell me, were you more offended that I called out the clear nonsense you are peddling here or just that I used a few bad words?

[Uncle Nate 2097]

19 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

My apologies that your delicate sensibilities were bruised by my obviously abhorrent language. Tell me, were you more offended that I called out the clear nonsense you are peddling here or just that I used a few bad words?

I think my question was pretty apparent.  This has been a civil discussion and all of a sudden you are all pissed off and calling names out of the clear blue.  I was just curious as to why?

I don't think I'm peddling anything.  I have not been evangelizing or anything. I thought it was a decent discussion between people with different points of view.  If you can't handle a civil debate without getting all pissed off, then either find some better meds or don't engage in the debate.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

20 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

I think my question was pretty apparent.  This has been a civil discussion and all of a sudden you are all pissed off and calling names out of the clear blue.  I was just curious as to why?

I don't think I'm peddling anything.  I have not been evangelizing or anything. I thought it was a decent discussion between people with different points of view.  If you can't handle a civil debate without getting all pissed off, then either find some better meds or don't engage in the debate.

My argument stands that a comic book company produces more relevant and worthwhile material pays taxes and doesn't get involved in the government. Why shouldn't churches be held to account and pay for the services that everyone else has to? Especially when massive amounts of their income doesn't even go to charitable causes?

[Uncle Nate 2097]

20 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

My argument stands that a comic book company produces more relevant and worthwhile material pays taxes and doesn't get involved in the government. Why shouldn't churches be held to account and pay for the services that everyone else has to? Especially when massive amounts of their income doesn't even go to charitable causes?

1. More relevant and worthwhile material is your opinion.  What you dismiss others see as truth, and vice versa admittedly.

2.  Again, let's be careful not to lump everyone into the same boat.  Don't confuse these scam artist mega churches with the churches who actually practice what God commands.  Let me be clear...I do not consider Joel Osteen and his like to be true Christians.  They are motivational speakers who are preaching a false gospel in order to attain wealth.  They should be called out for the con artists that they are and taxed appropriately.  I'm just trying to point out that there is a clear and true difference between them and traditional, mission and gospel oriented churches who, when having to decide between spending their limited funds on helping the community vs. their own church building maintenance, more times than not choose the former because that is the right thing to do.   

[sheeeit 129]

Osteen is an unusual case.  I personally do not care for his opulence but his message (admittedly I have only seen a few sermons on TV and have never been to the church) seems genuinely good and, obviously, many people find inspiration and solace and peace in his teachings.  Church going and tithing are completely voluntary and I have no problem with people choosing both for whatever reason.

The tax thing is sort of a misnomer.  For the actual church, as many have mentioned, they do not really make any income.  No business is taxed on their revenue, it is on the income/profit.  Churches typically operate at a loss on a financial statement.  The rely on large donations and fundraisers etc to offset their operating expenses.  So even if there was a movement to tax them, it would yield little or no revenue from an income standpoint.  For property taxes, I think of it the same way as Private Universities.  They have a mission to do good and are recognized as having an impact on the well being of society.  I do not have a problem with that.  Also, church employees pay taxes on their wages just like any other citizen including FICA which the church matches by law.

As for Osteen personally, he has not received any money direct from the church for many, many years.  His income comes from books and outside speaking engagements and other media.  I think I remember that his most popular book from several years ago sold over 100,000,000 copies.  Osteen, of course, pays personal taxes on all of that income and he pays property taxes on all of his personal holdings.

The one grey area that I do not like is that the church sort of promotes/advertises his books and stuff.  I think that should be more separated but I am not sure it is a big deal.  

In short, the churches do not make any money that can be taxed anyway.  Osteen is taxed just like everyone else on his personal earnings.  And I am confident enough that churches do enough good for enough people that giving them a break on their property taxes is just fine.

As for Harvey, there is not enough info to know the real situation as there are always two sides to a story.  I will say it looked very bad and seemed to be handled poorly by Osteen and the church.  The award, by the way, was really for everything that the church has done and continues to do for Harvey relief.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

22 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

1. More relevant and worthwhile material is your opinion.  What you dismiss others see as truth, and vice versa admittedly.

2.  Again, let's be careful not to lump everyone into the same boat.  Don't confuse these scam artist mega churches with the churches who actually practice what God commands.  Let me be clear...I do not consider Joel Osteen and his like to be true Christians.  They are motivational speakers who are preaching a false gospel in order to attain wealth.  They should be called out for the con artists that they are and taxed appropriately.  I'm just trying to point out that there is a clear and true difference between them and traditional, mission and gospel oriented churches who, when having to decide between spending their limited funds on helping the community vs. their own church building maintenance, more times than not choose the former because that is the right thing to do.   

Just like how any company that invests heavily into research and development or donations to charities, something similar could be set up for churches. This would help to weed out the churches that abuse their tax-exempt status and buy their pastor and the church leadership multi-million dollar houses and cars they would never be able to buy were they not in the position they are in.

We can quibble about what is true all day and night, but suffice it to say I don't believe sufficient evidence has been presented that supports any religions claim that their God exists or their heaven exists or that I should feel any need to submit to said "god's" will. But that's just me.

At the end of the day, I care about truly helping my fellow man because they deserve it. Not because I am under any obligation or commandment to do so from on high which may or may not include the prospect of proselytization and/or conversion (historically at force).

[sheeeit 129]

27 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Just like how any company that invests heavily into research and development or donations to charities, something similar could be set up for churches. This would help to weed out the churches that abuse their tax-exempt status and buy their pastor and the church leadership multi-million dollar houses and cars they would never be able to buy were they not in the position they are in.

Not sure you quite understand this.  Churches can not buy houses and cars for their pastors.  Those assets are in the name of the church and when the pastor dies or leaves or whatever, he gets zero equity from them.  In almost all cases, the pastor is required to pay the nominal amount the irs requires for getting a benefit.

The big houses thatsome live in, like Osteen, are owned by Osteen and are paid for with after tax dollars and are subject to property taxes.  Any salary or benefit paid to Osteen or any pastor is subject to taxation like anyone else.

[Pato del Muerto 52532]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

Do you have the same stance for every other non-profit, or just the religious ones?

 

Komen foundation has a similar ratio of fundraising to actually helping expenditures. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

You’re not singling them out. You’re doing to opposite in fact. 

So tax all of the nonprofits?

[elfenix 34330]

i guess the question wrt fundraising overhead is whether that adds net charitable dollars into the system as a whole, vs just funneling charitable dollars from one charity to another.  so, for example, if total charitable giving in this country were $1 million without fundraising overhead, but spending $100,000 on fundraising raises an additional $200,000, so now there's $1.1 million available charitable dollars, then that's good. if all it does is split that $1 million among the charities, then the fundraising reduces total charitable dollars available.

another thing about churches: those doing the giving are often the recipients of the benefit.  if you donate so your church can have a new gym, yes, it helps with community outreach and what not, but the churchgoers who funded it are going to be the primary users.  that's a bit different than donating to the food bank, which i hope i'm never in the position to use.  ofc there's nonreligious charities where many of the donors and management are there because they've been personally impacted by the target of the charity (see, e.g., kurt warner funding a house for adults with special needs which would help his son)

[deadshank 24653]

23 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i guess the question wrt fundraising overhead is whether that adds net charitable dollars into the system as a whole, vs just funneling charitable dollars from one charity to another.  so, for example, if total charitable giving in this country were $1 million without fundraising overhead, but spending $100,000 on fundraising raises an additional $200,000, so now there's $1.1 million available charitable dollars, then that's good. if all it does is split that $1 million among the charities, then the fundraising reduces total charitable dollars available.

another thing about churches: those doing the giving are often the recipients of the benefit.  if you donate so your church can have a new gym, yes, it helps with community outreach and what not, but the churchgoers who funded it are going to be the primary users.  that's a bit different than donating to the food bank, which i hope i'm never in the position to use.  ofc there's nonreligious charities where many of the donors and management are there because they've been personally impacted by the target of the charity (see, e.g., kurt warner funding a house for adults with special needs which would help his son)

Don’t go to Camp Olympia and look at their golf course Whispering Pines. 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i guess the question wrt fundraising overhead is whether that adds net charitable dollars into the system as a whole, vs just funneling charitable dollars from one charity to another.  so, for example, if total charitable giving in this country were $1 million without fundraising overhead, but spending $100,000 on fundraising raises an additional $200,000, so now there's $1.1 million available charitable dollars, then that's good. if all it does is split that $1 million among the charities, then the fundraising reduces total charitable dollars available.

another thing about churches: those doing the giving are often the recipients of the benefit.  if you donate so your church can have a new gym, yes, it helps with community outreach and what not, but the churchgoers who funded it are going to be the primary users.  that's a bit different than donating to the food bank, which i hope i'm never in the position to use.  ofc there's nonreligious charities where many of the donors and management are there because they've been personally impacted by the target of the charity (see, e.g., kurt warner funding a house for adults with special needs which would help his son)

There was a point when I moved 4 times in 5 years, as in to different cities and twice to different states.  3 of the 4 churches ran their own food pantries.

Our current church of 12 years or so, also does major projects involving backpacks/ school supplies/ and clothing drives for kids in the community who mostly do not attend our church.

We do 2 foreign missions, 1 in Latvia and the other in Haiti.  Thos folks ain’t atending our church either.

 

While the Osteens and shitheads of the world are frauds; I do believe much of the charity done by churches is underestimated, especially by the religiphobes.  On one hand, I wish we publicized it better.  On the other, it’s really none of their fucking business.

 

They gonna hate, regardless.

Edited August 17, 2018 by slorch

[dark54555 72]

Wrong.
The gyms can serve as community assets both in ministry/ fellowship of citzens on a near daily basis. Membership in the church is not required to attend.  They also are for shelters in times of distress/ natural disasters.
 
FTR not a fan of fako Joel either.

Yeah, it’s a great way to trick people into being there to cram your religion down their throats. These kind of rec facilities are complete bullshit and shouldn’t be tax exempt if they’re provided by a religious institution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dark54555 72]

The government is not "funding" them.
Not taxing does not equate to funding.
 

Not taxing them is equivalent to paying for them. It’s no different than corporate welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dark54555 72]

But they aren't for profit.
And I'm not talking about the mega churches.  I'm talking about the small, barely surviving churches. They don't even know what a profit would look like.  They expend more into the community than they bring in.  
 

You really don’t understand how this works do you? Do you think corporations have voting rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NeverMarryAStripper 21912]

Yeah, it’s a great way to trick people into being there to cram your religion down their throats. These kind of rec facilities are complete bullshit and shouldn’t be tax exempt if they’re provided by a religious institution.

Jesus still loves you

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Jesus still loves you

No he doesn't

 

[Trey3216 15350]

6 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yes. Stop using the government to fund fairy tales.

Fairy tales like everyone should get to eat whatever they want, get the diabeetus, and then file for SSDI because they don’t work anyway and get welfare and food stamps as well??  

 

We may as well clear everything up

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

If you tax the churches like everyone else, then the churches get to have a say in the government (the churches, not the individual members).  I don't think you want that, do you?  I don't.  I believe in the separation of church and state.  It's called the two kingdoms.
I don't want the church involved in the government, and I don't want the government involved in the church.  The only way to have true separation.

Like they don’t already? It’s the judicial system that has fucked them

[XYZ 2154]

Can I be like a church? Not get taxed on my property or income, and not get to tell the government what to do?

[WhatTheBuck 28793]

5 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

Let me be clear...I do not consider Joel Osteen and his like to be true Christians.  

Do you think you also have the authority to determine who is and who is not a true Scotsman? 

[WhatTheBuck 28793]

3 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Jesus still loves you

Jesus doesn't know who you are.  

[WhatTheBuck 28793]

31 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Can I be like a church? Not get taxed on my property or income, and not get to tell the government what to do?

Not get to tell the government what to do? So...you don't want to be like a Christian church? 

[phdhorn 6224]

I'd be happy with only atheists having to pay taxes for chuches.    E'rrbody gets what they want! Win-win!

Edited August 18, 2018 by phdhorn

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Under the Texas Tax Code, a gym would be taxed. Localities may have their own exemptions though. Texas only exempts the worship place and a residence.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/tax-code/tax-sect-11-20.html

Point being don't take the word of an [expletive deleted] who thinks that Joel Osteen got wealthy by not paying taxes.

[dark54555 72]

Under the Texas Tax Code, a gym would be taxed. Localities may have their own exemptions though. Texas only exempts the worship place and a residence.
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/tax-code/tax-sect-11-20.html
Point being don't take the word of an [expletive deleted] who thinks that Joel Osteen got wealthy by not paying taxes.

Since those gyms are part of the same facility, I challenge you to fine any large church paying property tax on their rec facilities.

And regardless, they’re still not paying federal income tax, which would be the more important part of this conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ted Lange 16110]

9 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Under the Texas Tax Code, a gym would be taxed. Localities may have their own exemptions though. Texas only exempts the worship place and a residence.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/tax-code/tax-sect-11-20.html

Point being don't take the word of an [expletive deleted] who thinks that Joel Osteen got wealthy by not paying taxes.

Who said wealthy. He is just a piece of shit tax dodger.  He’d be wealthy either way, he just thinks he shouldn’t pay taxes like the rest of us. NEVER trust a rich preacher. That axiom will forever hold true. 

[pyrohornIII 4816]

I'd bet that ferarri isn't in his name directly.

[HouTex 1887]

Since those gyms are part of the same facility, I challenge you to fine any large church paying property tax on their rec facilities.

And regardless, they’re still not paying federal income tax, which would be the more important part of this conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They would not have income unless you disallow their expenses which probably is what you would do.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

On 8/17/2018 at 5:25 PM, sheeeit said:

  His income comes from books and outside speaking engagements and other media.  I think I remember that his most popular book from several years ago sold over 100,000,000 copies. 

LOL 100 million copies?  He gets credit for all the bible sales?  

[Bevo 13589]

Interesting that this became a divisive thread between conservatives and liberals. It has little to do with Joel Osteen and is more of a general thread against religion. Y'all have fun.  

[TwiceHorn 31511]

On 8/17/2018 at 3:43 PM, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Marvel Comics pays its taxes and it churns out more relevant and compelling literature on a regular basis than does the entirety of any church or religion in the country. But not only that, they don't see their way into trying to get involved in the politics of the government. So yeah, your fucking church can pay taxes dickbag.

The point of non-taxation of churches isn't their output of literature.  The vast majority of them pull in just enough money to fund their operations, which typically includes a whole passel of social services, ie charity, that Marvel doesn't offer.   In addition the separation of church and state, there is the fact that the vast majority of them are eleemosynary, non-profit institutions.

 

It's fine to throw stones at Osteen and other of his ilk, but accusing the vast majority of churches of this is ignorant and prejudiced.

[sheeeit 129]

12 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Who said wealthy. He is just a piece of shit tax dodger.  He’d be wealthy either way, he just thinks he shouldn’t pay taxes like the rest of us. NEVER trust a rich preacher. That axiom will forever hold true. 

It is strange the way people let their hatred or bigotry or whatever you want to call it compel them to just post anything they want regardless of truth or facts.

You can hate religion all you want and you can hate Osteen all you want.  You can argue that churches should be taxed, but the above post is just so stupid.  Osteen pays the same tax rate as everyone else for every dollar that goes to him personally and he pays taxes on every fringe benefit provided to him by the church.  

[Whitman 694]

On 8/17/2018 at 7:03 PM, slorch said:

So tax all of the nonprofits?

I think that they all should pay any property tax, but that is it.  When you have a small town and there are 50 storefront churches that 25 people each now go to, which are run by one guy (it is for all intents and purposes his business), a stable local tax base is gone.  

I also think  all non-profits be required to have an open and available annual accounting statement showing income and where it went (and many do, but too many do not) as well as an asset and debt financial statement if they want the government's involvement of being tax exempt in any way.  Let people see it and then they can decide if the non-profit is worthy in their eyes to donate to.  These ministries or other groups with huge fund raising budgets or land holdings or salaries need to show in my opinion what they are doing with donations for people to see where it is going.  If they want that information private, then fine, it should no longer be tax-exempt, and allowable expenses should be severely limited.  

[Dutchrudder 11146]

Under the Texas Tax Code, a gym would be taxed. Localities may have their own exemptions though. Texas only exempts the worship place and a residence.
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/tax-code/tax-sect-11-20.html
Point being don't take the word of an [expletive deleted] who thinks that Joel Osteen got wealthy by not paying taxes.

There are a lot of loopholes in this system that get exploited by bigger churches. One being the size of the church doesn't matter, so Church 1A gets big, gets a sizable amount of money and starts Church 1B elsewhere in a trailer on an expensive plot of land. It's a new church, so it's not taxed under the law, but it gets the exemptions just the same, and is now an asset to the main operation. So long as they have a pastor in training there, they can keep the gig running and retain the investment in tax free status. If the church fails a few years later, sell the land and get the returns and "donate it" back to the main church fund.

There's also no real limit to how much they can build on to the church property. Lots of them add secondary buildings for private schools that share the land, playgrounds, shops, bookstores, etc. Hell the United Methodist church on Lake Woodlands has a Starbucks labeled coffee shop in it on sundays. Their youth center was a hangout for teens had a movie theater and tons of video game consoles. At some point the church should end, and other for profit things should begin, but it doesn't.

The pastors free home with no limits is also stupid. There should be a 250k max on the home value, otherwise it should be taxed.

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

LOL 100 million copies?  He gets credit for all the bible sales?  

Whoops.  10 million.  I type poorly.  Still a shitload.

[52-80 19205]

49 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

The pastors free home with no limits is also stupid. There should be a 250k max on the home value, otherwise it should be taxed.

Just because Jesus was born in a fixer-upper doesn't mean he should be raised in one.  Heathen.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Whitman said:

I think that they all should pay any property tax, but that is it.  When you have a small town and there are 50 storefront churches that 25 people each now go to, which are run by one guy (it is for all intents and purposes his business), a stable local tax base is gone.  

I also think  all non-profits be required to have an open and available annual accounting statement showing income and where it went (and many do, but too many do not) as well as an asset and debt financial statement if they want the government's involvement of being tax exempt in any way.  Let people see it and then they can decide if the non-profit is worthy in their eyes to donate to.  These ministries or other groups with huge fund raising budgets or land holdings or salaries need to show in my opinion what they are doing with donations for people to see where it is going.  If they want that information private, then fine, it should no longer be tax-exempt, and allowable expenses should be severely limited.  

Is that common in West Virginia, because it's not the case in Texas, and we have a shit-ton of churches.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dutchrudder said:

The pastors free home with no limits is also stupid. There should be a 250k max on the home value, otherwise it should be taxed.

I could live with that as long as it extended to the pay of any executive of a non-profit/ charity.  Let's just set max compensation for all of em, shall we?

 

i don't disagree with your position on this.  It would need to be shored up for consistency's sake.  Not just for religious entities.

Edited August 19, 2018 by slorch

[Whitman 694]

55 minutes ago, slorch said:

Is that common in West Virginia, because it's not the case in Texas, and we have a shit-ton of churches.

Yes, I see it in both Virginia and West Virginia.  I have seen cases in some small towns where they have had meetings to discuss what to do about the number of stores being converted to small churches and the measurable loss of property tax.  There was nothing the town could do about it in cases I saw.   One little town of about 7,000 had 67 of these little churches.  

[Doc Reeves 6434]

Is this the thread where we can talk about a trite, weaselly, megalomaniac of a little man who mixes flashy used-car sales tricks sprinkled with conflict resolution tips stolen from Dr. Phil?

 

I feel so sad for those empty Americans in his stands. I don’t believe in Christian Hell, but if one exists, the people who get sent there are the fools listening to him. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Doc Reeves

[WhatTheBuck 28793]

They're already in Hell. 

[dark54555 72]

It is strange the way people let their hatred or bigotry or whatever you want to call it compel them to just post anything they want regardless of truth or facts.
You can hate religion all you want and you can hate Osteen all you want.  You can argue that churches should be taxed, but the above post is just so stupid.  Osteen pays the same tax rate as everyone else for every dollar that goes to him personally and he pays taxes on every fringe benefit provided to him by the church.  

Nope. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 hours ago, sheeeit said:

It is strange the way people let their hatred or bigotry or whatever you want to call it compel them to just post anything they want regardless of truth or facts.

You can hate religion all you want and you can hate Osteen all you want.  You can argue that churches should be taxed, but the above post is just so stupid.  Osteen pays the same tax rate as everyone else for every dollar that goes to him personally and he pays taxes on every fringe benefit provided to him by the church.  

Wow this is so incredibly naive and dumb. Congrats moron. And I don’t hate religion. I hate frauds like Osteen. 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Wow this is so incredibly naive and dumb. Congrats moron. And I don’t hate religion. I hate frauds like Osteen. 

Exactly. 

[Dutchrudder 11146]

I could live with that as long as it extended to the pay of any executive of a non-profit/ charity.  Let's just set max compensation for all of em, shall we?
 
i don't disagree with your position on this.  It would need to be shored up for consistency's sake.  Not just for religious entities.

Wait, do people who run a non profit get tax free housing too??? I thought it was only pastors/rabbis/priests/imams, etc.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dutchrudder said:

5 hours ago, slorch said:

I could live with that as long as it extended to the pay of any executive of a non-profit/ charity.  Let's just set max compensation for all of em, shall we?
 
i don't disagree with your position on this.  It would need to be shored up for consistency's sake.  Not just for religious entities.

Read more  

Wait, do people who run a non profit get tax free housing too??? I thought it was only pastors/rabbis/priests/imams, etc.

Compensation is compensation, is it not? #wetaxeverything